DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Applicant added new dependent claims 16 and 17; and canceled claims 1, 9, 13-15. The pending claims are claims 2-8, 10-12, 16, 17.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/9/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-8, 10-12, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al., US 2013/0037760, in view of Swiegers et al., US 2016/0168732.
Regarding claim 2, Maeda et al., teaches an electrochemical cell (abstract) comprising: a catholyte (0031) comprising a cathode active material (positive electrode 4a) dissolved in an electrolyte (0040-0041); an anolyte (0031) comprising a polysulfide compound dissolved in the electrolyte (polyphenylene sulfide) (0027); and a separator electrically insulating the anolyte from the catholyte (0014), the anolyte and the catholyte in ionic communication with one another via the separator (membrane 1).
Maeda does not teach the cathode active material comprising a manganese-based compound.
Sweigers et al., teaches the cathode active material comprises a manganese based compound (0035; 0075).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to insert the teachings of Sweigers into the teachings of Maeda because manganese-based compound is a well-known cathodic material.
Maeda does not teach separator comprises a composite membrane, the composite including an inorganic material and an organic material.
Sweigers teaches a composite membrane (0069; 0071).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to insert the teachings of Sweigers into the teachings of Maeda “because of the low-cost of the GDEs it is possible to economically introduce them at both the anode and the cathode, thereby improving the efficiency at each electrode.” (0369).
Regarding claim 3, Maeda et al., does not teach wherein the manganese-based compound comprises a permanganate compound, a manganate compound, or a combination thereof.
Sweigers et al., teaches manganese-based compound comprises a permanganate compound (0035; 0075; 0173).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to insert the teachings of Sweigers into the teachings of Maeda because manganese-based compound is a well-known cathodic material.
Regarding claim 4, Maeda does not teach manganese-based compound comprises potassium permanganate.
Sweigers et al., teaches potassium permanganate (0035; 0075; 0173; 0411).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to insert the teachings of Sweigers into the teachings of Maeda “because of the low-cost of the GDEs it is possible to economically introduce them at both the anode and the cathode, thereby improving the efficiency at each electrode.” (0369).
Regarding claim 5, Maeda does not teach cathode active material comprises a mixture of KMnO4.
Sweigers et al., teaches KMnO4 (0035; 0075; 0173).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to insert the teachings of Sweigers into the teachings of Maeda “because of the low-cost of the GDEs it is possible to economically introduce them at both the anode and the cathode, thereby improving the efficiency at each electrode.” (0369).
Regarding claim 6, Maeda does not teach wherein the catholyte further comprises a bismuth oxide, an alkaline earth metal salt, or an alkaline earth metal hydroxide.
Sweigers et al., teaches manganese dioxide (0293; 0373; 0411).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to insert the teachings of Sweigers into the teachings of Maeda “because of the low-cost of the GDEs it is possible to economically introduce them at both the anode and the cathode, thereby improving the efficiency at each electrode.” (0369).
Regarding claim 7, Maeda does not teach wherein the catholyte further comprises a nickel-chelating additive.
Sweigers et al., teaches a nickel-chelating additive (additive configured to sequester nickel) (0293; 0319; 0329).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to insert the teachings of Sweigers into the teachings of Maeda “because of the low-cost of the GDEs it is possible to economically introduce them at both the anode and the cathode, thereby improving the efficiency at each electrode.” (0369).
Regarding claim 8, Maeda does not teach separator comprises a polymer.
Sweigers teaches the separator comprises a polymer (0069; 0071); a protective layer (0097).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to insert the teachings of Sweigers into the teachings of Maeda “because of the low-cost of the GDEs it is possible to economically introduce them at both the anode and the cathode, thereby improving the efficiency at each electrode.” (0369).
Regarding claim 10, Maeda does not teach wherein the inorganic material includes a metal oxide or a ceramic material.
Sweigers teaches a metal oxide (manganese dioxide) (0293; 0373; 0411).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to insert the teachings of Sweigers into the teachings of Maeda “because of the low-cost of the GDEs it is possible to economically introduce them at both the anode and the cathode, thereby improving the efficiency at each electrode.” (0369).
Regarding claim 11, Maeda does not teach organic material includes a polysulfone.
Sweigers teaches organic material includes a polysulfone (0097; 0157; 0159).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to insert the teachings of Sweigers into the teachings of Maeda “because of the low-cost of the GDEs it is possible to economically introduce them at both the anode and the cathode, thereby improving the efficiency at each electrode.” (0369).
Regarding claim 12, Maeda does not teach wherein the catholyte and the anolyte are aqueous solutions having a pH at or above 13.
Sweigers teaches a pH at or above 10 (0360).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to insert the teachings of Sweigers into the teachings of Maeda “because of the low-cost of the GDEs it is
possible to economically introduce them at both the anode and the cathode, thereby improving the efficiency at each electrode.” (0369).
Regarding claim 16, Maeda et al., does not teach the separator is permeable to hydroxide ions.
Sweigers teaches the separator (PTFE) is permeable to hydroxide (“hydroxide cross-over”) (0293).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Sweigers into the teachings of Maeda because Sweigers teaches that the separator (cation exchange membrane) (PTFE) (0293) is permeable to hydroxide (0293).
Regarding claim 17, Maeda et al., does not teach further comprising a layer of MnO2, coated on at least one side of the separator.
Sweigers teaches comprising a layer of MnO2, coated on at least one side of the separator.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to insert the teachings of Swiegers et al., into the teachings of Maeda et al., because “the porous conductive material can be a metal such as Ti, Cr, Pt, Cu, Pb, Sn, Co, Mn, Au or Ag, or mixtures or alloys thereof. Alternatively, the porous conductive material could be a metal coated with another metal.” (0150).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that “i. Maeda Teaches Away From Modification of Maeda's Electrically Conductive Composite to Include Sweiger's Composite Membrane.”
However, Sweigers et al., teaches a composite material (0055-0057):
“[0057] The porous conductive material may be a composite material, for example composed of more than one type of conductive material, metallic material, or of a conductive or metallic material(s) and non-metallic material(s). Furthermore, the porous conductive material may be one or more metallic materials coated onto at least part of the gas permeable material.”
The Applicant argues that “ii. Sweigers Has Not Been Shown to Have Described a Cathode Active Material Comprising a Manganese-Based Compound.”
However, Sweigers et al., teaches a cathode active material comprising manganese, as manganese is present in the porous conductive material, including manganese or mixtures or alloys thereof (0150; 0232).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to insert the teachings of Swiegers et al., into the teachings of Maeda et al., because the system “may be fabricated in an exceedingly low cost manner, allowing for the practical use of (i) relatively low current densities, which minimise electrical losses and maximise electrical efficiency, and/or (ii) low-cost catalysts comprising of Earth-abundant elements which only operate efficiently at lower current densities. By these means, it becomes possible to manufacture, practically and economically viably, large-scale electrochemical cells for use in industrial-scale electro-synthetic and electro-energy applications.” (0052).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1288. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
ANGELA J. MARTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/ANGELA J MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights